PSA/BGS/PWCC dispute or refund thread

[Flintboy]

None of this makes any sense at all.

PSA has the guarantee of an unaltered card, encapsulates said card, it then gets exposed as tainted and they say go back to where you bought it?

Why would PWCC or for that fact anyone other than PSA refund cards that were altered?

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Flintboy

None of this makes any sense at all.

PSA has the guarantee of an unaltered card, encapsulates said card, it then gets exposed as tainted and they say go back to where you bought it?

Why would PWCC or for that fact anyone other than PSA refund cards that were altered?

100% Correct I’ve been asking this question since day one! Falls on death ears I believe because people are making millions off PSA brand selling their product ECT. It’s the old don’t bite the hand that feed you silence that continues to facilitate the grandiose Debacle of Greed.

One would think if PSA was able to prove the submitter in bad faith submitted bad cards that were altered in an attempt to be graded with a number grade that they would have to go after that submit to civilly recover the money They had to pay back to the owner of the altered card. I’ve heard of this being done before by PSA. PSA has a guarantee make them prove that these alleged bad actors doctored/attempted to defraud them.

If PSA gets off Scott free without any responsibility this S will only continue the bad guys will just get more sophisticated in hiding their identities, who consigns to who purchases what handles are used etc.
I thought people on here wanted to HAVE Good Grading Company that didn’t grade bad cards, isn’t that the purpose of them?

In my view you’re going to see a major battle between PSA an alleged major problem submitters.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Flintboy

Why would PWCC or for that fact anyone other than PSA refund cards that were altered?

Have you been paying attention? PWCC and their submitting friends (Gary Moser, Brent himself?, Sotheby's restorer, Dick Towle?, etc) are implicated in doing the card altering themselves. Since PSA has the submission form state that when you sign, you promise you did not alter them, PSA does not have to pay restitution/guarantees to those who attempt to defraud their services.
So why wouldn't PSA push the financial burden onto a different company who is also at fault for the fraud. PWCC is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation right now. They're walking on eggshells. If they're willing to take the returns, PSA gets off with a whole lot less complaints and fiscal hit to their shareholders. Joe Orlando even said this scandal WASN'T MATERIAL TO THEIR BUSINESS!

If PWCC refuses to refund, then they likely face stiffer penalties from the FBI investigation. PSA at that point would be liable for the guarantee.

[Leon]

Nicely stated.

Originally Posted by swarmee

Have you been paying attention? PWCC and their submitting friends (Gary Moser, Brent himself?, Sotheby's restorer, Dick Towle?, etc) are implicated in doing the card altering themselves. Since PSA has the submission form state that when you sign, you promise you did not alter them, PSA does not have to pay restitution/guarantees to those who attempt to defraud their services.
So why wouldn't PSA push the financial burden onto a different company who is also at fault for the fraud. PWCC is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation right now. They're walking on eggshells. If they're willing to take the returns, PSA gets off with a whole lot less complaints and fiscal hit to their shareholders. Joe Orlando even said this scandal WASN'T MATERIAL TO THEIR BUSINESS!

If PWCC refuses to refund, then they likely face stiffer penalties from the FBI investigation. PSA at that point would be liable for the guarantee.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Have you been paying attention? PWCC and their submitting friends (Gary Moser, Brent himself?, Sotheby's restorer, Dick Towle?, etc) are implicated in doing the card altering themselves. Since PSA has the submission form state that when you sign, you promise you did not alter them, PSA does not have to pay restitution/guarantees to those who attempt to defraud their services.

It is a good point that if the submitter signs a contract stating he did not altered the card (or perhaps know the card is altered?), they broke/lied on the the grading contact and are liable. This, of course, doesn't dismiss that PSA wsa unable to identify the alterations.

I think PSA should pay the price for their inabilities to do their job, but forgers and liars should also pay a price.